Search

AbstractThis paper argues that bioethics as a field should broaden its scope to include the ethics of war, focusing on war’s public health effects. The “Introduction” section describes the bioethics literature on war, which emphasizes clinical and research topics while omitting public health. The section, “War as a public health crisis” demonstrates the need for a public health ethics approach by framing war as a public health crisis. The section, “Bioethics principles for war and public health” proposes six bioethics principles for war that address its public health dimensions: health justice, accountability, dignified lives, public health sustainability, nonmaleficence, and public health maximization. The section, “Justifying and applying bioethical principles” shows how these principles inform ethical analysis, including just war theory and military ethics. The section, “From principles to practice” envisions ways in which bioethicists can promote these principles in practice through research, teaching, and service. The “Conclusion” section urges bioethicists to engage with war as a public health crisis, including calling attention to war’s impact on civilians, especially women, children, and other vulnerable groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper opens a critical conversation about the ethics of international bioethics conferencing and proposes principles that commit to being anti-discriminatory, global, and inclusive. We launch this conversation in the Section, Case Study, with a case example involving the International Association of Bioethics' (IAB's) selection of Qatar to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics. IAB's choice of Qatar sparked controversy. We believe it also may reveal deeper issues of Islamophobia in bioethics. The Section, Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing, sets forth and defends proposed principles for international bioethics conferencing. The Section, Applying Principles to Site Selection applies the proposed principles to the case example. The Section, Applying Principles Beyond Site Selection addresses other applications of the proposed principles. The Section, Objections responds to objections. We close (in the Section, Conclusion) by calling for a wider discussion of our proposed principles. One-Sentence Capsule Summary: How should bioethicists navigate the ethics of global bioethics conferencing? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on practical fields like bioethics. Topics include addressing cutting-edge challenges like human-brain organoids, artificial intelligence (AI), and interspecies chimeras; and concern arises specifically when individuals lack intellectual capacities that Western views deem necessary for personhood, such as sentience, consciousness, autonomy, and rationality.

The article stresses the need to prioritize frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Topics discussed include the best way to manage pandemics such as COVID-19, difference between pandemics and typical mass casualty events like mass shootings or earthquakes, and ethical argument for priority to healthcare personnel on the frontlines.

The authors comment on the reopening of economies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Topics discussed include basis made by U.S. states such as Washington in reopening, strategies for weighing competing values, and implications of the ethical guidelines for the varied responses to the COVID-19 pandemic evident around the world.

The article focuses on the fair subject selection in terms of four sub principles including fair inclusion, fair burden sharing, fair opportunity, and fair distribution of third-party risks. It mentions a principle of fair reparations is diachronic, triggered by past injustices; at the same time; and also mentions the larger picture of clinical research includes the quotidian things.

Our aims are to (1) set forth a multiprinciple system for selecting among clinical trials competing for limited space in an immunotherapy production facility that supplies products under investigation by scientific investigators; (2) defend this system by appealing to justice principles; and (3) illustrate our proposal by showing how it might be implemented. Our overarching aim is to assist manufacturers of immunotherapeutic products and other potentially breakthrough experimental therapies with the ethical task of prioritizing requests from scientific investigators when production capacity is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do neurosurgical procedures ever result in the patient prior to the procedure not being identical with the individual who wakes up postsurgery in the hospital bed? We address this question by offering an analysis of the persistence of persons that emphasizes narrative, rather than numerical, identity. We argue that a narrative analysis carries the advantage of highlighting what matters to patients in their ordinary lives, explaining the varying degrees of persistence of personal identity, and enhancing our understanding of patients' experiences. We illustrate these points in cases involving temporal lobectomy for treatment of refractory epilepsy and deep brain stimulation for refractory Parkinson's disease. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The author conveys her views on whether for-profit groups like pharmaceutical firm Pfizer have reason to consider the distributive effects of their actions or they are beholden only to shareholders. The market failure approach to corporate responsibility is discussed. Practice guidelines was issued by the United Nations in 2018 to help businesses translate principles of corporate citizenship into practice. Corporate citizenship means that companies like Pfizer have also duties to rightsholders.

The author offers a defense of the Texas Advance Directive Law (TADA). Topics covered include how TADA's approach achieves a balance that recognizes the physician's duty to provide competent and professional care that helps the patient and the value of respecting the preferences of patients and surrogates and how it offers a method for overriding futility judgments made by individual providers while leaving medical decisions to people who are trained and experienced at making them.

The author discusses the ethics of rescue medicine. The author states that in tragic situations, rescue medicine renews hope and has the power to restore faith in human beings. The author notes that despite strong positive emotions, rescue efforts provoke chaos. The author mentions that when rescue medicine prevents other values such as long-term care and universal access to health care, it becomes unjust and an irrational system for allocating health care.

The author comments on ethical issues concerning kidney commercialization. Topics covered include the views of people opposing human organ commercialization as well as harms associated with kidney sales. Also mentioned are the different approaches to address problems associated with the proliferation of kidney sales in some countries.

The author offers insights on the use and necessity of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), in response to the article "Irrational Exuberance: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation as Fetish" by P. M. Rosoff and L. J. Schneiderman, published within the issue. Topics explored include the perception of healthcare providers, patients, and the media on CPR, the need to consider patient outcomes associated with the procedure, and the need to respect wishes and values of the patient before performing CPR.

The article discusses expanded access programs describing the usage of experimental therapy that benefits research participants. Topics discussed information on Food and Drug Administration's approval of nusinersen for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), justification for patient selection criteria on the bases of utilitarian and deontological arguments, and incremental improvement in well-being.

The article discusses issues concerning the use of prudential life approach to health care provision to patients. Topics covered include the impact of the approach on patients with severe dementia as well as the implications of the approach to protect researchers from bias samples. Also mentioned is the risk associated with the use of this approach.